tomasis7 Posted November 12, 2010 Share #101 Posted November 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) third "film resurgence" thread? who wanna bet about exact time when andy closes the thread after an eventual childish fight however, im relatively young guy who is gonna use silver stuffs for whole life (i hope it is available then) digital workflow is big plus to get fast, effective editing of scanned films and print a very few but best images at analog way. I have old Focomat II c enlarger, Jobo cp2 processor. Bought 20 brass Leitz casettes for hefty price. I consider to add 20 another. Im not going give up M3 for newer ones as MP/M7 Yeah, I started photography with digital at first time. It was year 1998? I remember it was Kodak 0,8mpx which I did loan from a friend. Highest resolution was 640x480. I remember school's camera Sony Mavic which uses 3,5" diskette, lol. Then followed Canon Powershot 2mpx and so forth. Guess what happened later, I switch from digital to films, at the same time old chaps gladly switches from film to digital and buy thick books as "Photoshop for dummies" beside heavy manuals from Canikon. A lot reading for them also sitting against computer with crooked backs, poor ones For me, working with films is total liberation. It was strange for me when I actually stand and go around the room. It felt like I was awakened. No wonder that I spent away my youth on electronic devices sitting and feel flickering on my eyes, I dont remember how long time it was. Each to its own. /one who feels sensation by touching on anything real quite lately Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 Hi tomasis7, Take a look here Young people and film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #102 Posted November 13, 2010 This is just my opinion, but I think the way to sustain the future of film photography is to promote the uniqueness of the process of engaging in film photography and printing craftsmanship, the satisfaction one can get from learning it and trying to master it along with expressing why the results are worth the effort. I think the rest of it - trying to say one is better than the other, cheaper, etc. is debatable depending on the person or situation. I think one can say that in general the perception is that if you are just starting out, digital is easier and cheaper than film in most cases. I think going against that will be a tough sell and misses anything important about using film itself. I know one professional shooter who really has had a hard time trying to transition to digital and sure doesn't find it easier use today. (She feels she has no choice.) I had shot film for such a long time I had it down. So I at first found digital to be much more work to understand and get "right." And I'm still trying to master it whereas I feel I had most film photography techniques mastered a long time ago. But these are people who already had a long established workflow and were set in their ways. If people such as those on this film forum don't find concise relatively indisputable ways to promote the use of film photography and analog printing, how is it going to get promoted and thrive in the future? As I listed earlier, most fields of applied photography are now being adequately addressed by digital photography, so the main reasons to use film are related to personal vision, tradition, style, and craftsmanship. (And perhaps some find pleasure in using older film cameras.) I would say from personal experience that the revelation that I could make a print in a darkroom was the initial spark that ignited my interest in photography. And perhaps that is one reason I value the craftsmanship of W. Eugene Smith over that of Bresson despite the fact that I appreciate the imagery of both. If you are using film in the future and trying to work on a serious level, you will probably be making a statement about tradition, style, and craftsmanship. So it shouldn't be that hard to articulate it and promote it. I have no problem doing it and really appreciate those who shoot film and print their own pictures. (Again I am not against anyone who wants to do casual shooting, but what is there worth discussing about that?) If you start from the perspective that young people may be picking up a Lomo or "better" film camera, what do you want them to do with it? Have fun at first and then work in a serious traditional or new direction to keep the medium meaningful? What advice do you give them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted November 13, 2010 Share #103 Posted November 13, 2010 If people such as those on this film forum don't find concise relatively indisputable ways to promote the use of film photography and analog printing, how is it going to get promoted and thrive in the future? Film is an alternative, which the only reason some young people need, Alan. Or do you have a problem with that? I shoot film cameras because digital ones are crap and they don't work in the places I do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #104 Posted November 13, 2010 Film is an alternative, which the only reason some young people need, Alan. Or do you have a problem with that? I do not have a problem with that but do you think it will be enough? By the way. I have been using a Lomo Horizon panoramic camera for around 20+ years. It is one of my favorite cameras and I'm not so young anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 13, 2010 Share #105 Posted November 13, 2010 "I shoot film cameras because digital ones are crap..." And your evidence is.....? That's a pretty broad statement, along the lines of "I only talk to (insert skin color) people because (insert different skin color) people are crap..." Prejudice, really. IF..... I said "I shoot digital cameras because film ones are crap," would this forum accept that at face value? Or demand a little evidence? Or slightly more humble phrasing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted November 13, 2010 Share #106 Posted November 13, 2010 Digital cameras need access to mains power, so I think they're crap. That's all the evidence I need. I'll ignore the racist slur, for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 13, 2010 Share #107 Posted November 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I quite regularly shoot 2-3 weeks without the need of mains power for digital, shoot film alongside and have a heap of students shooting film and digital in unison.......... no big deal either way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 13, 2010 Share #108 Posted November 13, 2010 "Digital cameras need access to mains power, so I think they're crap." Thank you! That's perfectly fair comment. There was a long period when I stuck with meterless Nikon F's over more modern film cameras for the same reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearlight Posted November 13, 2010 Share #109 Posted November 13, 2010 "I shoot film cameras because digital ones are crap..." That's a pretty broad statement, along the lines of "I only talk to (insert skin color) people because (insert different skin color) people are crap..." Prejudice, really. ? A bit over the top, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted November 13, 2010 Share #110 Posted November 13, 2010 Digital cameras need access to mains power, so I think they're crap. That's all the evidence I need. If that's how your thought processes work I pray you're never on my jury. Leica M chargers work off 12 volts, and mains-only chargers work perfectly off current dirt-cheap inverters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted November 13, 2010 Share #111 Posted November 13, 2010 I would say from personal experience that the revelation that I could make a print in a darkroom was the initial spark that ignited my interest in photography. I have to admit that there IS a real excitement and fascination to seeing a whole image appear, as if by magic, in front of your eyes. And it is something that the digital workflow cannot emulate. Although I no longer have a darkroom (I spent TOO much time in them) printing in B&W on photographic paper its something which I would suggest is a very valuable experience to young, budding photographers, even if it only to demonstrate a unique process, create enthusiasm and create awareness of the attributes of the 'analogue' workflow. I don't see going back to film but 'watching the image' appear is certainly something I really enjoyed and to an extent, miss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 13, 2010 Share #112 Posted November 13, 2010 Clearlight, no, I don't think so. Prejudice is prejudice, and stating one's opinion as though it were absolute fact makes one wrong from the start - no matter what the opinion is. Once one develops that bad habit, it tends to spread to other realms of thinking. IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted November 13, 2010 Share #113 Posted November 13, 2010 Giordano, I've shot remotely tethered to a picture editor's desk, so I know exactly what is possible, clown. Getting a car into the Highlands of Papua New Guinea is definately not possible. Good luck at court, btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #114 Posted November 13, 2010 Digital cameras need access to mains power, so I think they're crap. That's all the evidence I need. Film cameras are crap. They require bulky expensive film and processing. You always find out when it is too late that you screwed something up. If you carry 10 charged batteries, that is enough for around 10,000 frames and much less bulky than the equivalent amount of film. Hasselblad used to make a small cranking device that would let you keep shooing if the battery ran out. (A crap battery powered film camera of course.) These generalities are not really productive and I doubt if the lack of a need for power alone will sway very many people to use a film camera. Everyone has an opinion, but considering the increase in digital camera sales and the reduction in film sales, a lot of people have balanced the pros and cons for their own situation already. What does anyone here tell young people that encourages them to use a film camera? (In addition to "digital camera are crap because they need power.") I tell them to get in a darkroom and see if they can enjoy making prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted November 13, 2010 Share #115 Posted November 13, 2010 I also tell them digital cameras, for a given format, have less resolution, a flat tone curve, less dynamic range and they devalue quicker than luxury cars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 13, 2010 Share #116 Posted November 13, 2010 What does anyone here tell young people that encourages them to use a film camera? Take them on a shoot so they can try 4x5, process the film with them and make a big print of the technically best frame. It ruins them for life. Not really, but it leaves a great impression. They can make up their own mind. In my case, it's a Linhof Super Technika (rangefinder) 4x5 with 135mm lens (sometimes a 75mm Biogon). The students get the biggest kick out of it. Once in a while I'll pop it with Edison base flashbulbs for outdoor fill. It's great fun for all. Leica? Sure. I'll loan an M4 from time to time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #117 Posted November 13, 2010 I also tell them digital cameras, for a given format, have less resolution, a flat tone curve, less dynamic range and they devalue quicker than luxury cars. Does that convince them? So can't they get one of those devalued digital cameras cheap or for free? The lenses hold value either way and film and processing is much more expensive than the cost of the camera body if you shoot a good volume. If you can convince them on a qualitative or craftsmanship basis, I think you have a point. Cost, convenience, etc. are not as cut and dry as you seem to see it. I think when you compare tone curve, dynamic range, etc. it makes a difference exactly what you are comparing. Slides, color neg, b/w against what type of raw image processing? What I found difficult about shooting transparency film for so many years was that I was locked into the color qualities, balance, tone curve and dynamic range of the film. E.g. when I shot a catalog of custom carpets, I had to shoot them on a variety of films as some films made some colors look more "correct." This was before you could tweak individual colors on a computer. And if I shot on overcast days, my images would look flat even if I wanted more snap. If I had even a moderately contrasty slide and wanted to make a Cibachrome print, I had to dodge and burn like mad, or make a contrast mask to have chance at holding shadow and highlight detail. Of course these are some of the things that make film shooting more challenging too. But you have to be inclined to get satisfaction from those challenges. Do you find that the young people you interface with understand the "challenges" of using film and are interested in meeting those challenges? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 13, 2010 Share #118 Posted November 13, 2010 Here we go again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted November 13, 2010 Share #119 Posted November 13, 2010 Clearlight, no, I don't think so. Prejudice is prejudice, and stating one's opinion as though it were absolute fact makes one wrong from the start - no matter what the opinion is. Once one develops that bad habit, it tends to spread to other realms of thinking. IMHO. Hi adan Yours is a conditional statement it is valid only if one is wrong. So your quote is kettle calling pot black independent of color of pot? Do you have a post grad degree in sophistry? Noel Film cameras are crap. They require bulky expensive film and processing. You always find out when it is too late that you screwed something up. These generalities and excuses for arguments are not really productive. Everyone has an opinion, but considering the increase in digital camera sales and the reduction in film sales, a lot of people have balanced the pros and cons already. What does anyone here tell young people that encourages them to use a film camera? (In addition to "digital camera are crap because they need power.") I tell them to get in a darkroom and see if they can enjoy making prints. Hi AlanG Film is cheap - at the moment, digital requires large initial investement - at the moment. There is so much surplus film... Most of my darkroom kit was given to me, & last film SLR was 25 GBP. I'll give you can gst a nice DSLR real cheap, but if it fails, it is waste bin... A web book and photo quality printer are necessary for d-prints, unless you make do with mini lab machines. 35mm replaced 5x4 speed graphics for hot news cause it was more immediate not cause it was better quality, Dig and 35mm are similar, but if dont need to wire (i.e.e-mail) photos to news room, dev & proof in evening is possible for free apart from chemicals, note the Dcamera needs a 3G Laptop for hot news, and a solar cell supply if there is no mains. It depends what your are shooting, if it does not repeat you cannot reshoot it on digital, or analogue, Ill give you you know you failed sooner, but one is supposed to assume that anyway... You dont need mains for analogue you can proof with sunlight, you do need a standby gen for enlarging. I dont tell any youngsters to get involved with digital or analogue, if they ask I let them try my rfdr, tell them about scale focus and depth of field scale, even kids who have been of PJ courses may never have seen a depth of field scale. The big risk is they drool over my M2, 'why is the viewfinder so bright', 'how much is one'... If you see problems with analogue stick with digital, lots of people could not use reel to reel machines but could use Phillips cassettes, so reel to reel was always a niche product. I dont like the d higlights, but that I'd accept is a subjective thing. Lots ofpeoplecannot stand dig pics, again a subjective thing. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 13, 2010 Share #120 Posted November 13, 2010 who wanna bet about exact time when andy closes the thread after an eventual childish fight Close. Very close... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.